What We Talk About When We Talk About God

[HitchSlap]

That is your opinion. Many may agree. Many may disagree.

The sadistic serial rapist would disagree.

Speaking atheistically you are no better or worse than he is ultimately.





Why is that opinion of yours the "objective truthful way to treat people"?

What makes your opinion more truthful objectively than the opinion of the serial rapist?




Maybe so.

Many do not.

Many like to be brutal and sadistic. Many do not care about themselves let alone anyone else.

If each person determines their own meaning in life, then the rapist is simply doing what he wants. When he dies, he will die and become dust just like you.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - YouTube

 

[Iosias]

I see little reason to believe in God in the first place.

Paradoxum, I get that. All I am trying to do is open up the possibility that the God you reject is also rejected by me, yet I would still believe that God exists.

Paul Tillich in his Systematic Theology says

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.”

He also says

“It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.”

The BIG question is what we are talking about when we talk about 'God'. If we are understanding 'God' as being a Supreme being' who sits upon a throne up beyond the clouds and if we call this 'theism' then atheism is natural in an age of space exploration. But why should our concept of God be beholden to premodern ideas? So when you say that you reject God, I am not so sure you do!

 

[Paradoxum]

That is your opinion. Many may agree. Many may disagree.

The sadistic serial rapist would disagree.

Speaking atheistically you are no better or worse than he is ultimately.

I'm not sure the rapist would disagree. They still might like the law to protect themselves. They might just break the law because they think they can get away with it. Either way it doesn't matter.

Without protecting people from each other, there would be no civilisation. If the rapist understood the implications of this, they probably would support the law, even if they broke it.

Theses are fair questions to ask... I'm just not sure you are asking to try to work to find an answer, or you just want to call my atheism into question by saying everything is my opinion.

Also, I'm not sure why you 'atheistically'. Atheism is a position on God, not one on morality or law.

Why is that opinion of yours the "objective truthful way to treat people"?

What makes your opinion more truthful objectively than the opinion of the serial rapist?

Because I don't hold myself above others with my actions. Well, in practice I probably do, but I try to be a better person. If there is no outside value, then we are all equally valueless. From an objective perspective, there is no reason to treat one person's will as more important than another's. So you could say it is truthful to acknowledge the will of others, and objective to not treat your own will as more important.

I know I don't have it all worked out though.

Maybe so.

Many do not.

Many like to be brutal and sadistic. Many do not care about themselves let alone anyone else.

If each person determines their own meaning in life, then the rapist is simply doing what he wants. When he dies, he will die and become dust just like you.

True. I don't know what you want me to do about that though.

Paradoxum, I get that. All I am trying to do is open up the possibility that the God you reject is also rejected by me, yet I would still believe that God exists.

Paul Tillich in his Systematic Theology says

I know you believe in a different sort of God, but I'm not sure if it should be called God.

What does it mean for God to be 'being-itself'? Existence? If God is just 'being-itself', then why not called it 'being-itself', rather than 'God'?

I can't tell how far your beliefs are from my former beliefs. I did think God was the ground of all being, and that he was the existence of everything, but that he was also also a being 'Himself'. ie: a perfect being beyond and within space and time.

Do you think God has values, does he love, or purposefully take actions in the world? Is it more than existence?

He also says

The BIG question is what we are talking about when we talk about 'God'. If we are understanding 'God' as being a Supreme being' who sits upon a throne up beyond the clouds and if we call this 'theism' then atheism is natural in an age of space exploration. But why should our concept of God be beholden to premodern ideas? So when you say that you reject God, I am not so sure you do!

Well there are mid points between a greek style god in the sky, and what you seem to believe. For example, you might think there is a personal God that is beyond space and time.

I understand God to be personal in some sense. By that, I mean more than a force or state. Conscious in some sense. If it has objective values/ morality I might consider it to be God.

What do you think God is, in more detail?

 

[Iosias]

What do you think God is, in more detail?

Sure, I hold to what can be called a dialectical concept of God.

Some helpful quotes:

Most commonly, when we assert that something exists, we mean that it can be found within the world of space and time. But clearly God does not exist in that sense. He is not an item within the world, so that in the ordinary sense of the word ‘exist’, God does not exist, he is nothing. Still, it would seem very odd to someone who believed in God as the ultimate reality to be told that he does not exist! As we have noted in the case of some of the mystical writers discussed earlier in the book, when they say that God does not exist or that he is nothing, they mean that his mode of being transcends the kind of being that is exemplified by the existence of objects in space and time...When we speak of God as ‘being’, we do not mean that he exists as a rock or a galaxy or even a human being exists. He is not a being in the ordinary sense of the word. God exists in the sense of the source of all existence. He is, so to speak, existence raised to a higher power, not so much ‘being’ as ‘letting be’.

And

We cannot frame the idea of a ‘superexistent’ transcending the existent things of the world, any more than a dog or cat coming into my study can understand what a book is. In each case there is a level of reality beyond the power of comprehension. Yet people do not just remain silent. They stretch language to the uttermost, not to comprehend, but, again in Wittgenstein’s term, to ‘show’ or ‘point to’ (zeigt) the mystery.

And

God is the ultimate reality, the primordial source of everything that is, the originary event of giving. Because of this ultimacy, he cannot be annihilated or overcome.

If that doesn't answer your question let me know and I will try again...

 

[Ianus]

I like Rob Bell and Paul Tillich!

 

[bhsmte]

Paradoxum, I get that. All I am trying to do is open up the possibility that the God you reject is also rejected by me, yet I would still believe that God exists.

Paul Tillich in his Systematic Theology says



He also says



The BIG question is what we are talking about when we talk about 'God'. If we are understanding 'God' as being a Supreme being' who sits upon a throne up beyond the clouds and if we call this 'theism' then atheism is natural in an age of space exploration. But why should our concept of God be beholden to premodern ideas? So when you say that you reject God, I am not so sure you do!

So, do you reject the God as described in the bible and embrace the concept of a more universal God, one who does not involve himself with human lives or interact with the goings on on earth?

 

[Iosias]

So, do you reject the God as described in the bible and embrace the concept of a more universal God, one who does not involve himself with human lives or interact with the goings on on earth?

I believe that the God described in the Bible is shaped by the humans who wrote it, it says more about them than God (cf. Feuerbach). As I understand God, he is the ground of being and so is involve himself with human lives but is not interventionist - 'in him we live and move and have our being' (Acts 17:28).

 

[Ken-1122]

Have you read Bell's latest?

What We Talk About When We Talk About God by Rob Bell - YouTube

I believe what he says makes a lot of sense. But I don’t believe it is God that is like the Oldsmobile, I believe it is religion. People’s concept of God changes as people change, but religion is written down and that is more difficult to change with the times. The reason his friends Kathy, Mike, and Gary were offended is because the religion they chose says these things! The bible says women should not teach or lead over men, and it doesn’t make exceptions for women with master degrees. The bible says homosexuals are going to hell; and it doesn’t make an exception when society decides they should not. The bible says the earth was created in 6 days and it doesn’t care what science says!

IMO The problem is when religions are started thousands of years ago and the ethics and morals of those times are written down on paper and people with the ethics and morals of today attempt to proclaim these ancient writings sacred and feel a need to justify them.

Those religious leaders are just repeating what is written in the bible! Kathy, Mike, and Gary's problem is not with the religious leaders, their problem is with the bible.

Ken

 

[Gadarene]

Paradoxum,

I believe the evidence is in how we live life. I think that atheists perhaps have internalized the core values of theists on issues of qualitative matters - purpose, beauty, value of life, meaning, morality etc. Atheists feel at liberty to remove 'God' from the equation when contemplating these issues because general agreement on many of them has entered the collective consciousness. That means, in my opinion at least, that the collective consciousness houses in itself a God-concept, constructed through various anthropological patterns of thought, constructed, to a large degree in the west, through the Christ event and its impact on our development. I believe it is important to honestly study the God concept that has arisen in our collective human consciousness and which acts as a foundation for many of our beliefs.

I also believe that it is as impossible to live an honestly nihilistic, materialistic life as it would be to honestly live as a literalistic Christian.

And this is where I find it necessary to oppose views such as this.

Those core values are, simply put, not yours. They never were. They are human, not theistic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that atheists perhaps have internalized the core values of theists on issues of qualitative matters - purpose, beauty, value of life, meaning, morality etc.

Those are human values, not theistic values as such. They are simply interpreted and explained by theists in light of their own doctrines. It is possible to examine such issues from a non-theistic perspective.

I also believe that it is as impossible to live an honestly nihilistic, materialistic life as it would be to honestly live as a literalistic Christian.

Perhaps so, but I don't see what any of that has to do with atheism. There is no necessary connection there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I believe that the God described in the Bible is shaped by the humans who wrote it, it says more about them than God (cf. Feuerbach). As I understand God, he is the ground of being and so is involve himself with human lives but is not interventionist - 'in him we live and move and have our being' (Acts 17:28).

IMO, there is no question the God of the bible is a man made attempt (a desperate attempt) to accomplish the following:

-try to explain the world they lived in
-try to control people with fear and intimidation
-get people to follow the rules by tossing out the carrot of eternal life

I am atheist towards the God of the bible and agnostic towards a more universal God, one that does not interact on earth or in peoples lives. And, if you look at the world we live in, I simply can't see how any rational person can explain that an all knowing, all loving, all powerful God, is intervening with life on earth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

IMO, there is no question the God of the bible is a man made attempt (a desperate attempt) to accomplish the following:

-try to explain the world they lived in
-try to control people with fear and intimidation
-get people to follow the rules by tossing out the carrot of eternal life

I think that is one source. The other source is probably mystical, and comes from religious experience. For example, the burning bush.

I'm not so certain that this is even an attempt to explain the world, even though it may be put to that use by others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nathaniel Byers]

I haven't read the new book yet, however, I'm hoping to very soon!

 

[drjean]

When I talk about God I talk about Ultimate Love...a concept few humans can comprehend and certainly cannot with God Himself to show, to indwell.

People tell me they don't believe in God and I ask them to describe to me this god you don't believe in... and they come out with the same rhetoric I read here in the non-Christian forums, and from agnostics and atheists... and indeed, I don't believe in the god they describe....for truly they do not know God Almighty.

I wish they (you?) did.

 

[Ken-1122]

When I talk about God I talk about Ultimate Love...a concept few humans can comprehend and certainly cannot with God Himself to show, to indwell.

People tell me they don't believe in God and I ask them to describe to me this god you don't believe in... and they come out with the same rhetoric I read here in the non-Christian forums, and from agnostics and atheists... and indeed, I don't believe in the god they describe....for truly they do not know God Almighty.

I wish they (you?) did.

When people ask me which God I don't believe in, I tell them I don't believe in the God discribed in the Bible, Koran, Vedas, and all the other unsubstantiated holy texts I've heard of.

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

When I talk about God I talk about Ultimate Love...a concept few humans can comprehend and certainly cannot with God Himself to show, to indwell.

People tell me they don't believe in God and I ask them to describe to me this god you don't believe in... and they come out with the same rhetoric I read here in the non-Christian forums, and from agnostics and atheists... and indeed, I don't believe in the god they describe....for truly they do not know God Almighty.

I wish they (you?) did.

How exactly, does a non-believer describe a God they already don't believe in?

 

[drjean]

When people ask me which God I don't believe in, I tell them I don't believe in the God discribed in the Bible, Koran, Vedas, and all the other unsubstantiated holy texts I've heard of.

Ken

How exactly, does a non-believer describe a God they already don't believe in?

Exactly as Ken did... Most people when they say they don't believe in God have a picture of what God would be in their minds..and often it is a negative picture. I don't believe in a god that is vicious and uncaring, unjust and unmerciful. Who would want to ?

The God of the Bible is not the god of the koran and other texts. I've read (in English) the q'oran and there is nothing at all in there about a god of love, for instance (not much love at all actually). Talking to muslims I've found that allah prides himself in being malicious and a prankster, often promising one thing and then not producing or taking it way out of spite.

Read the book of John to find out more about my God of Love.